5 massive lies the Bible tells re Jesus

[WoIverine]

Christianity also teaches a lot of nasty things that tend to be conveniently overlooked in favour of the more "happy" things...

What kind of nasty things? Do tell.

Edited March 24, 2016 by WoIverine

[Habitat]

You should maybe take that up in the advertising v skepticism section. It may be that it doesn't raise a whimper here because it is not relevant. You can be skeptical about more than one thing. The failure to mention one does not invalidate the argument against the other. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is such a blunt instrument for argument.

Very relevant because it illustrates that subtle indoctrination is accepted by people of immature personality, when it is carefully crafted to massage the ego. Religion is a bit of a hard sell to people who are pretty sure the universe revolves around them, or ought to.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I'm not sure how to answer that.

Remember my earlier post about me being a truckdriver? Now all of a sudden I'm getting Truckdriving ads on Facebook. Time for the tinfoil hat.

Yeah, I remember you mentioning that. I also remember me feeling, why bring that up? I didn't really see a connection to the OP.

And if your 'metaphoring' please explain.

seeder- it seems as though you're expecting Christianity to prove itself by ridding the world of war, money and greed. It doesn't work that way. Judeo/Christian ideology only works to the extent that individual citizens choose to follow those standards.

To me, by far the best proof of God and the truth of Christianity is when society chooses to stop honoring the tenets of Judeo/Christian ideology. The Western world is still nominally immersed in Christian values, but it's that very immersion that makes us unable to imagine life under another ideology. If Western Civilization falls and we find ourselves under Shariah Law, that's when we'll start to think, "Gee, that Christian stuff wasn't so bad after all." Look at life in any of the countries that have an outright ban on Christianity; would you want to live in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, China (China does allow State-approved churches that toe the Communist Party line)?

We have it good here. I like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But as the song says, "You don't know what you got 'til it's gone."

So, in a sense, it's just Jesus imploring the world to philosophize his way? No miracles, or proof of Heaven or Hell or anything that can be proven in the afterlife?

Well, frankly people would just be just as correct to follow Ghandi or Martin Luthur King. If we boil it down to following a person and their ideals.

No. Not unless you call the Earth, hell.

Or just Los Angelas

Christianity also teaches a lot of nasty things that tend to be conveniently overlooked in favour of the more "happy" things...

I like to pipe in, that I do have that 'inner' peace or happiness. ( not all of the time. That would unbelievable. We all have the bad times.) But my point is that I never got the sense it could come through with Christianity. I'm not saying it doesn't give it, but it's not the only belief system that does either. And I have seen many Atheists with so much inner peace, I feel the soft vibrations coming from them.

I frankly do not understand, how so many make one thing the only inclusive thing to do something, when I have found other things that do it too.

For example, the Christian lady down in Jersey, who had a conniption fit that I didn't read the bible at all. ( oh yeah, she's at peace with her religion. ) and I met a Wiccan lady down there as well, who was so jelling, that I felt it settle into my soul. And for some reasons, she totally looked like Jeri Ryan. ( she said she gets that a lot )

And my thoughts on Bhuddists I have met, forget about it. I have yet to meet a grumbly Bhuddist.

I'd suggest the advertising industry world-wide peddles more untruths and false values than any church, but doesn't raise a whimper from the usual suspects here. Take the blinkers off, advertising is omnipresent compared to the dreaded "proselytizers". Probably because the advertisers know how to massage egos, and pander to immaturity.

So, shall we advise the church goers the same thing, buyer beware?!?!? Edited March 24, 2016 by TheMustardLady

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Very relevant because it illustrates that subtle indoctrination is accepted by people of immature personality, when it is carefully crafted to massage the ego. Religion is a bit of a hard sell to people who are pretty sure the universe revolves around them, or ought to.

Your point of view, or are you making a blanket statement that needs some links to back it up?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

What kind of nasty things? Do tell.

1. How if you are a slave you should treat your master with respect even if the slave owner is harsh.

"Ephesians 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

"1 Peter 2:18 - "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

"1 Timothy 6:1 - "1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

2. Women should "submit" to men.

"1 Timothy 2:11-12 – "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent

3. Homosexuality is apparently punishable by death.

"Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

4. Kill those who are against advocates of the lord.

"Deuteronomy 17:12 - "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel."

Those are just a few out of many.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Nuclear Wessel

[simplybill]

The Abrahamic God has magnified 100 fold with his biblical commandments.

My questions are: what criteria do you use to judge which bits are productive and which to leave alone? And, where does that criteria come from?

I think Mystic Crusader answered your questions for me, but you have to consider the concept of salt in the Bible. Salt acts as a preservative and a flavoring agent. An easy way to test the concept : next time you're in a grocery store, buy a can of "no-salt-added" green beans, and then pay attention to the tiny amount of salt it takes to them edible (and consider the ratio of salt volume to green bean volume). In the same way as salt, the influence of just one appropriate Bible verse, when applied to one's everyday life, is magnified all out of proportion to the amount used.

So which bits are productive? Well, as TheMustardLady said in an earlier post, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a universal concept (though it's best understood within the context of the four gospels). So, I say we start with that one. Post it in every classroom, courtroom, government building, commercial building...That one tiny verse will have a big impact on our society.

Edited March 24, 2016 by simplybill

[WoIverine]

Just so everyone is aware, books from the Old Testament are before Christ/Christianity.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Just so everyone is aware, books from the Old Testament are before Christ/Christianity.

This point is irrelevant. The Old Testament is part of The Holy Bible, which is taught to Christians.

[barbco196]

That is because you never say anything. You cut and paste quotes at random.

You've conveniently ignored the post to which Otto von Pickelhaube was responding.

Why is there such a rage to disprove the historicity of The Bible? The same emotion doesn't go into trying to disprove Aesop, Grimm's Faiytales or the tales from Hans Christian Andersen.

These tales are told to introduce appropriate behaviour and lay a foundation for common sense. Then most of us grow into adults and we become accountable for our morals.

Common sense is what we use so we can make a decision swiftly and without the need to gather and carefully consider evidence. It allows humans to get day-to-day stuff done.

Is that why you just cut and paste - so you can actually complete a post?

You don't use your own words, because...

... and hides your lack of ability to convey a cogent thought.

Have you got any coherent and original examples to back up your vitriol?

I think he's just a teenager or very young adult. Kid gloves with this one.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

So which bits are productive? Well, as TheMustardLady said in an earlier post, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a universal concept (though it's best understood within the context of the four gospels). So, I say we start with that one. Post it in every classroom, courtroom, government building, commercial building...That one tiny verse will have a big impact on our society.

First: Is that a subjective or objective point of view? Do you think everybody thinks this.

Second: Why don't you go ahead, post that context of the four gospels and compare with the various sayings that is also within the contexts of other religions and of an Atheist point of view.

Let's see if everyone agrees with what is better than the other.

WoIverine, on 24 March 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

Just so everyone is aware, books from the Old Testament are before Christ/Christianity.

This point is irrelevant. The Old Testament is part of The Holy Bible, which is taught to Christians.

So how is it, that one can choose in which one is the right one and which is the wrong one? If it's still part of the bible, then we're still talking about the bible, all of it.

[Space Commander Travis]

I think he's just a teenager or very young adult. Kid gloves with this one.

Someone tries to respond with some reasonable points and that's the response they're met with? I mean, don't bother to try to respond to any of the points, will you. An offhand dismissal is much more effective. Edited March 24, 2016 by Otto von Pickelhaube

[Space Commander Travis]

So how is it, that one can choose in which one is the right one and which is the wrong one? If it's still part of the bible, then we're still talking about the bible, all of it.

The Bible being "taught" to Christians in the sense that it's all a set of orders, or is all actually literally true, really is a very old fashioned viewpoint. Even mainstream churches - even the Catholic church - have a much more subtle and nuanced view of it now. the OT is now seen as providing the background and the setting for the expectation of the Messiah, and what people's expectations were in those days, and shows people's evolving view of how humanity viewed God. In this thread, as so often, people are taking the most old fashioned and now outdated view of it in order to mock or attack it. It's largely only people who insist that they don't believe in all that superstitious nonsense that still insist that it must be seen as literally true and that God must be as he';s depicted in the early books of the OT.

[+Hammerclaw]

There's no debating going on here. Practically everyone has staked their ground and are skirmishing at the borders. Funny how some Atheists claim religion doesn't rule their lives, yet constantly talk about God and Christianity, all day, everyday.

[GoldenWolf]

That is because you never say anything. You cut and paste quotes at random.

You've conveniently ignored the post to which Otto von Pickelhaube was responding.

Why is there such a rage to disprove the historicity of The Bible? The same emotion doesn't go into trying to disprove Aesop, Grimm's Faiytales or the tales from Hans Christian Andersen.

These tales are told to introduce appropriate behaviour and lay a foundation for common sense. Then most of us grow into adults and we become accountable for our morals.

Common sense is what we use so we can make a decision swiftly and without the need to gather and carefully consider evidence. It allows humans to get day-to-day stuff done.

Is that why you just cut and paste - so you can actually complete a post?

You don't use your own words, because...

... and hides your lack of ability to convey a cogent thought.

Have you got any coherent and original examples to back up your vitriol?

Common sense? You talk about common sense and you can't even understand what I mean by mirroring a tyrant.

[Rlyeh]

Just so everyone is aware, books from the Old Testament are before Christ/Christianity.

Not that "Christ" was against slavery either.

[Space Commander Travis]

Not that "Christ" was against slavery either.

You put "Christ" in quotation marks. Is that because you understand that it wasn't his actual name, or that you don't believe he existed?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

The Bible being "taught" to Christians in the sense that it's all a set of orders, or is all actually literally true, really is a very old fashioned viewpoint. Even mainstream churches - even the Catholic church - have a much more subtle and nuanced view of it now. the OT is now seen as providing the background and the setting for the expectation of the Messiah, and what people's expectations were in those days, and shows people's evolving view of how humanity viewed God. In this thread, as so often, people are taking the most old fashioned and now outdated view of it in order to mock or attack it. It's largely only people who insist that they don't believe in all that superstitious nonsense that still insist that it must be seen as literally true and that God must be as he';s depicted in the early books of the OT.

I find this reply a very informative one. So, in a sense, it's seen as various levels to get to the understanding? It also seems you understand my secular raising to inform of how churches does it. Do all churches do this?

Is the first part, the OT, still revered as the NT? Maybe that makes a difference?

[SHaYap]

More relevant is the fact that the OT does NOT recognise the NT ~

[Stubbly_Dooright]

More relevant is the fact that the OT does NOT recognise the NT ~

I wouldn't know. ( and of course, there is nothing wrong with that. )

But, when I have come into contact of those, who scream at me to read the bible, and the bible should be taken literally, it seems they are talking about all of it. But yet, there is one section that one shouldn't pay attention to, and then one section that is?

Is this all in the same book?

[Space Commander Travis]

More relevant is the fact that the OT does NOT recognise the NT ~

yes, because it came before that. Unless one is a Time Lord of course.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

yes, because it came before that. Unless one is a Time Lord of course.

What if Jesus was actually a Gallifrey?

[Mr Walker]

Christianity also teaches a lot of nasty things that tend to be conveniently overlooked in favour of the more "happy" things...

I don't get that, but then i was not raised as a christian.

While i have read the bible many times, and studied it with many groups, this was all as an adult who brought prior secular humanist values with me. .

There are many laws in the old testament which served a good purpose at the time.( actually given that they were really secular laws devised by men to protect and order a society and then overlain with th,e authority of god almost every law in the bible originally served a useful, productive purpose .) Some still do, others not only don't serve their original purpose, but have become detrimental.

But the bible is clear about how and why laws should be applied. It says laws are made for humans, not humans for the laws ie a law is made to aid and help humans, we are not made in order to obey the laws. We came first. our laws came later. When it stops doing this, it stops being a valid law. It also says (Christ's words) that every law must be viewed and obeyed from love. not fear or legalism. Yes laws may hurt or control us at times,but their intent is love and protection.

I live by the bible as a way of life and yet live quite happily, in a modern society, as a modern person. I find no conflict in doing so, and a great deal of benefit to me, those I love, and those i serve in my community.

( I care for my slaves, only beat my wife when she needs beating, and haven't stoned a homosexual or a prostitute in this incarnation. god i HOPE readers realise I am joking)

Love yourself and then love others as yourself. Obey the laws of god and man. from that love of self and other.

While accepting the consequences which will surely follow, break laws which do harm, but be certain that doing this this does not create a greater harm.

That is what Itook as an adult from the bible, and why i chose Christianity as my "social form' or expression of religion.

[SHaYap]

I wouldn't know. ( and of course, there is nothing wrong with that. )

But, when I have come into contact of those, who scream at me to read the bible, and the bible should be taken literally, it seems they are talking about all of it. But yet, there is one section that one shouldn't pay attention to, and then one section that is?

Is this all in the same book?

Nothing wrong at all ... if anyone even speaks of the bible in the literal sense it is a given that their motivation and intentions are never about the Bible but rather something else ~

I read it because I enjoy reading old and ancient scripts ~ to compare the Eastern and Western Spiritual views and history ... never took it literal in any sense and I'd rather not comment on the practice about the religion as I'm not of the religion ...

yes, because it came before that. Unless one is a Time Lord of course.

Not quite in the sense of what I meant ~ but I get what you mean ... principally the OT is pretty much purely Judaic in nature and not only precedence in terms of timeline ~

The so-called "Old Testament" is a Christian reference to the Jewish sacred scriptures, referred to by Jews by its acronym as TaNaKh. In the Jewish tradition, this consists of three groups of books: 1) the "Ta" stands for Torah, the first five "Books of Moses" - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

• quora link
  

~

[Stubbly_Dooright]

yes, because it came before that. Unless one is a Time Lord of course.

Ooooooh, so this is all timey-wimey?!?!?!?

[Mr Walker]

Not that "Christ" was against slavery either.

it is very hard to be "against" an economic system which allows for the survival of all, both free and slave and without which slaves would have had to be put to death, and slave owners would have suffered severely and whole societies might have collapsed causing starvation and war. In reality in such times all one can do is to try to improve the system and make it more humane.

All forms of slavery, historically, have only ended when they have already been superceded by more effective economic models of production and resource management. This is usually the result of technological self-improvements like a better plough or harvester or other means of improving the abilty of a society to create a food surplus. Women were only liberated from virtual economic and social slavery, when our economic model changed and required their paid employment in the work force.